Bushlas
oh boy! Was I NOT the target audience for this book. One of the myriad goals of this book is to assuage philosophical scepticism about the world (maybe virtual world, who knows? another point of this book). My uneducated understanding of this book involves something like this:
“Look, bro. The reality may be virtual, I dunno. But if it is, which is probabilistically likely... no, shut up! I am not overthinking... anyway, it is likely that it is virtual, and if so don't be a loser sceptic about it, okay? Virtual things are real, kind of... I mean what is reality anyway, am I right? But be cool and don't be a sceptic, wondering what the point is if there was never really a spoon in the first place, and that the foundational reality of your experiences can never be confirmed to exist with any type of certainty. That is pointless. Unlike this book, which, you know, says the world is virtual, but who cares because virtual things are real.”
What fun! I think Sayers's style is better (for me) than her most famous contemporary, Agatha Christie. Sayers writes humor into her stories without force and she knows how to twist up a story like no other. I also immensely enjoy the noble people dynamics in these books during the 20s. I am not sure if everything we read is accurate here in terms of decorum and ‘whatnot,' but love it regardless of that.
Sayers also really explores, not just the mystery, but the legal drama that follows or even precedes the mystery. In her stories, finding a murderer is not the end all be all. She knows that conviction and guilt are not synonyms.
I will now continue reading the adventures of Lord Peter Whimsey!
